Reddings guide illegal participation

[KWH]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Did George Demetriou write this case play? If so, he changed his mind from last year about this being IP. I wonder if that play is still in the 2009 Redding Guide.

Welpe-
1) George did not write this case play but I know who did!
2) I do not know where or from whom you are getting your information, but the information you are providing is inaccurate! Why? Because, other than the page number and the example number the play and the ruling has remained unchanged in the 2007, 2008, and 2009 versions of :The Redding Study Guide to NFHS Football by Geroge Demetriou:

EXAMPLE 5-10: Wide reciever A83 runs along the sideline and after taking two steps out of bounds, jumps. While in the air, he (a) catches the ball and lands in bounds, or (b) bats the ball to A87 who catches the ball, and then A83 lands out of bounds. RULING: In both (a) and (b), the ball remains live and the catch is legal. In (a), A83 is guilty of illegal participation.

Also note, this is the exact same play provided in the original post of this thread. (138 Posts before this one)

Source:
2007 Redding Guide Page 38, Example 5-9
2008 Redding Guide Page 40, Example 5-10
2008 Redding Guide Page 40, Example 5-10

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by KWH

1) George did not write this case play but I know who did!

Since you know the author of this interpretation, why don't you ask him to explain the logic, sense or reasoning behind his interpretation?

[KWH]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Since you know the author of this interpretation, why don't you ask him to explain the logic, sense or reasoning behind his interpretation?

Alf-
I did just as you ask;
The author based his interpretation solely on the wording in the NFHS Rules Book!

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by KWH

Alf-
I did just as you ask;
The author based his interpretation solely on the wording in the NFHS Rules Book!

That's really too bad. I was hoping whomever issued that ruling would have the courage of his convictions to stand behind his judgment and simply explain his thinking, which may have answered a lot of questions and eliminated a lot of doubt.

My question is not an argument with the rule, although I believe it could be a lot better worded, it's with this particular interpretation of what the rule is trying to establish. I understand the rule specifically states a person is OOB when he is touching anything OOB, but the rule does not require, nor even suggest, that this "touching" be continual to maintain his being OOB.

That logic, or lack thereof, seems to be the sticking point. I also understand there is no definition of being, "Inbounds" to fall back on, so common sense and basic logic seem necessary and appropriate. There is nothing, anywhere in the rules of the game, the history of the game or the actual application of the game to suggest that such a convoluted notion as a player somehow, regaining his inbound status by simply jumping up into the air AFTER rendering himself OOB (by stepping OOB).

This isn't rocket science or some extreme, or twisted, version of English literature. The rules are intended to be simple and clear so they are well, and easily, understood, rather than adhering to the most extreme interpretation, that serves no relevant purpose .

Our role is to simply insure that the rules of the game are followed for the primary objective of seeing that neither team gains some "unfair" advantage over it's opponent. Our role does NOT include developing and strictly enforcing obscure interpretations to try and look smart.

We don't have to agree with every rule interpretation, to properly enforce it, but I am comfortable that no rules were deliberately created to be confusing, lack all common sense and defy rational explanation. Interpretations that are not explainable are simply incorrect.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I understand the rule specifically states a person is OOB when he is touching anything OOB, but the rule does not require, nor even suggest, that this "touching" be continual to maintain his being OOB.

The language used in the rule is "is touching". That is the present tense of the verb "touch". If a player is no longer in contact with the sideline (ie he goes airborne), it does not make grammatical sense to say that the player is touching the sideline. In that case, the player touched the sideline (the past tense of the verb).

Think of it this way. Put your hand on your desk. You are touching the desk. I would say, "Al is touching the desk." Remove your hand from your desk. It is not accurate for me to say "Al is touching the desk." It would be proper for me to say "Al touched the desk."

That is how I read the definition of out of bounds when I read 2-29-1:

"A player or other person is out of bounds when any part of the person is touching anything, other than another player or game official that is on or outside the sideline or end line."

[Mike L]

who knew that "is touching" could be such a hard concept to grasp?

[Welpe]

What I do know is that I haven't talked this much about touching since high school.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

who knew that "is touching" could be such a hard concept to grasp?

I think we agree that when the player touched anything OOB, he became OOB. Where we part ways is over how, or more importantly why, you presume he would regain a status of being inbounds, when he simply jumps up into the air while remaining outside (beyond) the sideline/endline?

If you accept that rules are made for some logical purpose that advances the playing of the game, you should be able to offer some logical basis for considering your interpretation as being rational. If you can't, you just have to question the interpretation.

We do not have to agree with the logic or rational for a rule, to be willing to enforce it, but there should be SOME logic or rational involved to consider an interpretation enforceable.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I think we agree that when the player touched anything OOB, he became OOB.

Not quite. The reading of the very definition does not lend OOB to being a persistent state but rather a volatile state that exists only as long as a specific condition is being met.

Why are you choosing to ignore the straight forward language in the rule? "Is touching" is very specific unless you disagree with my previous post about the plain English definition of what "is touching" means?